It therefore follows that visually, the deceased's face and head had many visible bruises, including bleeding and abrasion wounds. Jaudat is not a doctor, and certainly not a forensic doctor. It is possible that in the difficult situation and the pressure in which he saw it, he would have treated the bleeding on the deceased's face as signs of a vehicle. In all of this, and in the margins, we should note that the terminology used by Dr. Kugel regarding the absence of "clear" signs can coexist with the existence of unclear signs of a tire.
A final comment regarding the claim that Jaudat's description of the deceased's car getting on top of the deceased is not possible, which may have been correct to begin with: Jaudat is a few meters away from the place of the car-ramming and watches the Dodge hit the deceased (a fact that is not in dispute) and also observes that the Dodge at least overtakes the deceased with one wheel (a claim supported by the presence of hidden blood on the rear tire pavement). In this state of affairs, even if Jaudat, from the place where he was found, erred in thinking that the Dodge had overtaken the deceased even with the front tire (and this is not our determination that he was wrong), and in light of the bruises and visible blood that he noticed on the deceased's face, he believed that there were wheel marks, even though no "clear marks" were found, in the circumstances of the case, against the background of the nature of the incident (and witnessing a person being run over is an exceptional event by all accounts) and the trauma that accompanied the evacuation in his serious condition while bleeding in the back seat of a vehicle, we do not believe that this is a contradiction that goes to the root of things.
The defense expanded its summaries regarding the contradictions related to Jaudat's answer regarding the exact time he called MDA and from which he "cut back" the time of the incident. Among other things, it was claimed that the witness contradicted himself when he claimed in court that he had inquired about the time of the call to MDA using his mobile phone, even though in his interrogation he claimed that he had broken the mobile phone (a claim he retracted later in his testimony when he claimed that he did not remember whether he had broken the phone); It was claimed that the witness understood that his answers were not working out, and therefore he dismissed himself by answering that he had inquired about the time at MDA and that "there are things I can not tell you about."